United States v. Stewart

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Stewart

714 F. App'x 616

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2018

DocketNo. 17-2304

StatusPublished

This text of 714 F. App'x 616 (United States v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Stewart, 714 F. App'x 616 (8th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jakheeno Stewart appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court¹ after he pleaded guilty to a gun charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Stewart’s sentence.

After review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. There was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (standard of review). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the sentence and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Jakheeno Stewart appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court¹ after he pleaded guilty to a gun charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Stewart’s sentence.

After review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence. There was no indication that it overlooked a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (standard of review). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We affirm the sentence and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 F. App'x 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stewart-ca8-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack